4 ms·

> Microsoft explicitly called out Google for their behaviour but either neglected to mention or didn't investigate Facebook (skeptics may believe that this is b

> Microsoft explicitly called out Google for their behaviour but either neglected to mention or didn't investigate Facebook (skeptics may believe that this is because of Microsoft's shareholding in Facebook and their partnerships in search and advertising) I have trouble believing that they didn't check any other websites when they were preparing that blog post (and facebook would be the obvious next choice to test), but another reason not to mention facebook may be that not many people would notice the effect of the doubleclick cookie's absence in the ads that they see, but most people who use Like buttons (and facebook embeds, etc) would notice when they suddenly stopped working. So if people did use that new IE9 blocking feature with the suggested addition of google, and then facebook and all the sites found here were added too...you'd get the theoretical hit to facebook revenue, yes, but you'd get the definite hit of users all thinking your browser is broken because it won't load Facebook anywhere but facebook.com. Imagine those support tickets. (I believe this kind of interaction is almost the exact reason Mozilla decided not to block third party cookies by default and why Apple decided to add the exceptions in Safari...someone posted a bug earlier with an Apple engineer arguing for the exceptions specifically because of Facebok and Microsoft Live logins, among other things). edit: the bug was in comments on the ars coverage: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35824 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35824

mayanksinghal 15y ago
On the other hand, given that for a large set of content publishers Adwords provides a substantial revenue stream that will suddenly deplete. And given that this would probably be a larger hit to their pockets, the number of people who are actually in trouble would be larger in case Google cookies are blocked. I think # of support tickets, if that is a parameter we are judging the effect with, would be larger for this case.
- magicalist 15y ago
  ah, I was thinking more about pitchfork wielding users deciding whether or not to switch browsers (depending on how hard Microsoft pushed the blacklist additions, that could lose a few market share percentage points in a day or two), but based on the support ticket metric, that's a really good point.
eli 15y ago
I doubt Facebook shares have anything to do with it. Microsoft wanted to embarrass Google, but the alleged crime is very common because IE's implementation of privacy controls is flawed.
- lstoll 15y ago
  How is it flawed? According to the original report IE's handling is correct, it's the spec that's flawed.
  - eli 15y ago
    OK, the spec is flawed. Other browser makers have solved that problem quite neatly by not implementing it. It's also my opinion that while the implementation is strictly speaking correct, IE's default settings are too conservative and it is not at all an easy option for the user to change.
    - robertc 15y ago
      Firefox dropped support for P3P in Firefox 3 because "p3p isn't an effective way to establish trust with a site. it's a one-way system; anyone can say they're the good guy." See item b: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417800#c11 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417800#c11
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  IE's implementation of privacy controls is flawed. It really doesn't matter what MS does; they get bashed either way. In this case, their implementation is perfect: afaik, they're the only browser that actually follows the spec. FF, Chrome, etc., are just ignoring the standard. The problem here is that it's a really stupid standard, so that implementing it correctly results in brain-dead "protection". But Microsoft played by the rules, and now gets grief for it.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    They played by nonsensical rules and got grief for it. It's kind of fair, actually. Yet, I refrain from criticizing them - P3P is a broken standard, but Microsoft followed it. I'm criticizing them for singling out Google when, in fact, ignoring P3P or actively disabling it is widespread practice. I'm surprised live.com doesn't do it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

mayanksinghal 15y ago

On the other hand, given that for a large set of content publishers Adwords provides a substantial revenue stream that will suddenly deplete. And given that this would probably be a larger hit to their pockets, the number of people who are actually in trouble would be larger in case Google cookies are blocked. I think # of support tickets, if that is a parameter we are judging the effect with, would be larger for this case.

magicalist 15y ago
ah, I was thinking more about pitchfork wielding users deciding whether or not to switch browsers (depending on how hard Microsoft pushed the blacklist additions, that could lose a few market share percentage points in a day or two), but based on the support ticket metric, that's a really good point.

eli 15y ago

I doubt Facebook shares have anything to do with it. Microsoft wanted to embarrass Google, but the alleged crime is very common because IE's implementation of privacy controls is flawed.

lstoll 15y ago
How is it flawed? According to the original report IE's handling is correct, it's the spec that's flawed.
- eli 15y ago
  OK, the spec is flawed. Other browser makers have solved that problem quite neatly by not implementing it. It's also my opinion that while the implementation is strictly speaking correct, IE's default settings are too conservative and it is not at all an easy option for the user to change.
  - robertc 15y ago
    Firefox dropped support for P3P in Firefox 3 because "p3p isn't an effective way to establish trust with a site. it's a one-way system; anyone can say they're the good guy." See item b: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417800#c11 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417800#c11
CWuestefeld 15y ago
IE's implementation of privacy controls is flawed. It really doesn't matter what MS does; they get bashed either way. In this case, their implementation is perfect: afaik, they're the only browser that actually follows the spec. FF, Chrome, etc., are just ignoring the standard. The problem here is that it's a really stupid standard, so that implementing it correctly results in brain-dead "protection". But Microsoft played by the rules, and now gets grief for it.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  They played by nonsensical rules and got grief for it. It's kind of fair, actually. Yet, I refrain from criticizing them - P3P is a broken standard, but Microsoft followed it. I'm criticizing them for singling out Google when, in fact, ignoring P3P or actively disabling it is widespread practice. I'm surprised live.com doesn't do it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]